PTOTSLPSystematic ReviewThe Australian journal of rural health2022

What are the perspectives of speech pathologists, occupational therapists and physiotherapists on using telehealth videoconferencing for service delivery to children with developmental delays? A systematic review of the literature.

Claire Grant, Anne Jones, Helen Land

PMID 35157335

WHAT IT FOUND

Clinicians described videoconferencing as improving access and fitting family routines, but also feared technology failures, poor training, lost physical touch and weaker rapport.

These are views, not evidence that telehealth improves child outcomes.

Key findings

01Technology failure was reported as a barrier in 7 studies, while appropriate access to support and technology was a facilitator in 1 study.

02Telehealth was seen as unable to replace face-to-face therapy in 10 studies, with missing physical touch and unsuitable client groups reported as reasons.

03Seven studies reported improved access for families, while four studies reported telehealth negatively impacted the therapeutic relationship with the child.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The review included only 14 studies, and all were low-level evidence, so it cannot establish whether telehealth works for children. Most participants were speech pathologists, with very few occupational therapists and physiotherapists, so findings cannot be generalised across disciplines. Some studies required telehealth experience, so clinicians who avoided telehealth were not represented. Patient groups varied widely, including cerebral palsy, autism, feeding difficulties and school-based caseloads, so suitability for specific children cannot be concluded. Two studies shared participants, and the review was limited to English articles, although grey literature searching was used.

Declared interests

The review authors declared no conflicts. Several included studies received funding from telehealth-motivated organisations, which may bias their findings.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude telehealth improves child outcomes or is safe for every child. This review reports clinician perceptions from low-quality studies, not patient outcomes.

Read it on PubMed →